Talk:Criticism of Muhammad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Criticism of Muhammad article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Islam
Islam Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Middle Ages Icon
Middle Ages Portal
Criticism of Muhammad is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

article may be unbalanced or have problems with NPOV--Sefringle 04:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1


Contents

[edit] This Article Does Not Seem Proper

If the title of the article is "Criticisms of Muhammad," then it should contain verifiable and relevent criticisms with a small blurb with a link rebutting the criticism. The article looks like propaganda right now, and was far from what I expected. It appears as though there are people who dislike criticism of Muhammad and, as such, have constructed or modified the page to be more of a "Defense to Criticism of Muhammad." That's now what I was intending to read, and I'm not sure how this has passed the sniffer test.

Its a proper article with everything sourced. Please sign your posts. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article is not 'proper'. The person above makes a solid point that an article titled "Criticisms of Muhammad" should contain clear and relevant criticisms about him. It's not about whether it's good or bad.. it's about informing people what criticisms are. The tone of the article is defensive, rather than informative and concise. Also, please note that correct sourcing of an article doesn't necessarily make an article accurate.

I just came to this page for the first time, and I found the references more informative than this article itself. We need to create something clear about what are the precise criticisms (if people are sensitive about the matter, they can feel free to add defences of Muhammed in a separate paragraph). It comes across as if people tried to take the edge off the criticism, and tried to downplay it, rather than just state what the critism was and then tell about the defence. E.g. refer to the first paragraph on "Psychological and medical condition". That first paragraph doesn't inform people of what the critism was. The paragraph attempts to validate Muhammed, which is fine, but shouldn't we first clearly and concisely state what the criticism is first? After all, the title of the article is "criticism of Muhammed"...

Here's an example of criticism (note that this is just an example I slapped together, to convey what a matter of fact/ informative tone sounds like): "List of common criticisms: - Muhammed is said to have been epileptic[insert references here]. Speakers such as XXX, YYY and ZZZ have stated that to cover up the shame Muhammed had around his unexplained illness, he pretended that he was visited by the angel Gabreel who revealed to him verses of the Quran. [insert references here to sources on what speakers said and what the specific criticisms were]. - Muhammad consumated his marriage with Aisha when she was 9 years old [insert refs]. Per modern medicine [insert refs], female reproductive systems do not mature for at least 1 to 4 years after the first menstuation. (last part is a partial fact, I've heard about this from doctors, but how many years, requires clear verification and written reference). A criticism of Muhammed is that in consumating his marriage with a child who was not sexually mature, he set a poor example for the world's population today, an example that says 'a girl who has had her first menstrual cycle, is now eligible for marriage and therefore post-marital sexual activity' [insert ref here]. The impact of this is that very young females located in regions where illiteracy is widespread are often married off at an age when their reproductive systems have not matured and are therefore exposed to potential lasting psychological damage and physical injuries to reproductive systems [insert refs pointing to where this criticism came from]."

NOTE: The above statements are based on what criticisms are that I've read about but they lack references, so please don't post this on the main screen unless you've gotten clear info (references, clarity on facts vs fiction, etc). However, from the above example, you can understand that I'm asserting that the objective of this article is to give clear criticisms, and the article at present fails to perform that function adequately. -- Sarangdutt (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update

I don't think the section on Non-Muslim views needs to touch the views of 19th century scholars. The idea of dividing Muhammad's life into two sections, and viewing Muhammad sincere in one of them and insincere in the other one, like many other past theories, is now rejected. I don't think we need to mention that at all. --Aminz 05:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

or we can mention it. either way. --Aminz 05:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banu Qurayza had it coming?

Please justify the statement I labelled dubious, that the Jews had broken a treaty with Muhammad. Arrow740 02:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Of what value is doubting the redemptive elements of a story which exists only in sources which include those elements? Doubting the veracity of the whole story seems more appropriate than vilifying Muhammad by doubting a detail (unless of course you're bent on lending support to some forgone conclusions about him). Not to mention that later scholars as well as contemporaries of Ibn Ishaq (already 145 years removed from what would have been the actual fact) greatly doubted the validity of this report, which in itself is presented as but a minor detail David80 12:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro section

I made a decision to delete the intro section, as I believe the article is actually better without it. It should be about what he has been criticized for, who has criticized him and why they have criticized him, or in other words a short summary of the whole article. The intro section that was there, started out with telling us how great Muslims believe that Muhammad was, then there was just one line mentioning that he has been criticized, and it then finished with Watt telling us how wrong these critics of Muhammad are. That is just not acceptable. -- Karl Meier 11:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was clearly biased and in violation of WP:LEAD, as it did not reflect the article accurately at all. Other articles should get this same treatment. Arrow740 11:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Secular historians

Why did you remove this, Aminz?

Secular historians generally decline to address the question of whether the messages Muhammad reported being revealed to him were from "his unconscious, the collective unconscious functioning in him, or from some divine source", but they acknowledge that some of the material came from "beyond his conscious mind." [1]

Arrow740 09:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That's Watt's belief and it is already included. --Aminz 09:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to give more information on individuals before giving their interpretations or beliefs on topic? The article currently mentions Ibn Ishaq, W. Montgomery Watt, and Ibn Warraq without giving any information about any of these individuals. I'm especially concerned as part of the article can be seen as a response to Ibn Warraq's criticisms of Islam, and it seems important to separate the well-respected academic historian Watt from Ibn Warraq, the bestselling author and outstanding critic of Islam who does not work within the same academic tradition. However, a lack of clarity about the significance of scholars seems present throughout the article. I'm also adding a death date to Ibn Ishaq, to clarify that he is not contemporary to Ibn Warraq. Aharriso 03:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal

Why are you reverting me Arrow? That modern view is that Muhammad was sincere is asserted by other scholars which I have not named here. The 19th century scholars did really believed Muhammad was sincere in Meccan period.--Aminz 09:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but this isn't a soapbox for your views. Both sides should be given equal weight. Giving extensive quotes from your side prevents that. Arrow740 20:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The view of "each" scholar should be presented fairly. You can add more quotes from 19th century scholars and add it. That's fine to me. --Aminz 00:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it would work in the interest of wikipedia if your provided info instead of removing it.Bless sins 04:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced statement

I took this out because it was both wrong and unsourced: "Some critics believe this event set a disturbing precedent in Islamic law that established the right of Muslim captors to show no mercy to captives of war.[citation needed]" --Aminz 19:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that that (correct) statement will be easy to source. Arrow740 19:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Directory of Sites Critical of Muhammad

Dear Itaqallah, I noticed you returned this sub-heading. I was the one who originally added it. I do appreciate your edit here, but after reading Matt57's comment I realize he has a point and have had a change of heart. Matt is correct, the entire sites themselves are not dedicated to being critical of Muhammad. They are only pages within a entire websites, so the heading "External Links" is more appropriate. Also, the notability is not an issue as you believe. This was pointed out to me by another user... of course the links are not notable enough to be used as PRIMARY SOURCES for information within the article itself. However, the links are plenty notable and especially relevant to the LINKS section (please review that WP:NOTE] refers to topics, and not links). Sorry, that's why I'm going to have to revert to Matt's version. Peace. --ProtectWomen 09:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ProtectWomen. Aminz and ItaqAllah, also: Titles of the website links dont have to be nuetral. This is an article critical of Muhammed and the links will have the same nature, i.e. a critical nature. The link titles will be the same as the the titles of the linked articles. Also as ProtectWomen pointed out, notability is NOT an issue for External Links. WP:EL. Only RELEVANCE and quality of information is the criteria. I will be adding more links to articles critical of Islam, just to let you know so please do not engage in revert wars.--Matt57 13:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] quote for Arrow740

Recent writers have on the whole been more favourable and have taken the view that Muhammad was absolutely sincere and acted in complete good faith. Francis Buhl emphasized the far-reaching historical significance of the religious movement he inaugurated9; while Richard Bell spoke of the eminently practical character of his activity even as a prophet.10 Tor Andrae examined Muhammad's experience from a psychological standpoint and found it to be genuine, and also that he has a prophetic message for his age and generation.11

this succeeds some discussion about what writers of previous centuries wrote. it's quite a long discussion, so i haven't relayed that here, though glimpses of it i posted here. ITAQALLAH 21:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added quote from Hirsi calling him a "perverted tyrant"

Ayaan is certainly notable with regards to criticism of Islam and I added this quote in that section. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] name change

Could who ever changed the title, please change it back. Hypnosadist 21:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs a lead

The article is missing a lead. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs sourcing

The article says:"Some critics believe this event set a disturbing precedent in Islamic law that established the right of Muslim captors to show no mercy to captives of war."

This needs to be sourced. In fact, it goes against Peters statement that:

Not only did the Jews of Medina reject Muhammad's prophetic claims; they began to connive with his enemies in Mecca to overthrown him. Muhammad's own reaction was determined and progressively more violent. As the Prophets' political strength in the oasis grew, the Jewish tribes of Medina were first banished, then taken and enslaved, and finally executed on the spot. This quite extraordinary behavior is matched by nothing in the Quran, and is quite at odds with Muhammad's treatment of the Jews he encountered outside Medina. We must think then that his action was essentially political, that it was prompted by behavior that he read as treasonous and not some transgressions of the law of God.

So, please source this. --Aminz 08:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of critics in this excerpt. This "extraordinary behavior" or Muhammad, political or otherwise, is essentially unholy. In any case please give the exact quote you are parsing with "According to Norman Stillman, the incident cannot be judge by present-day moral standards." Arrow740 19:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The article says:"Some critics believe this event set a disturbing precedent in Islamic law that established the right of Muslim captors to show no mercy to captives of war."- This needs to be sourced. Re Stillman's quote, he says: "Neither blame nor vindication are in order here. We cannot judge the treatment of the Qurayza by present-day moral standards. Their fate was a bitter one, but not unusual according to the harsh rules of war during that period. As Rudi Paret has observed, Muhammad had to be more concerned with adverse public opinion when he had some date palms cut down during the siege of the Nadīr than when on a given day he had some 600 or more Jews put to the sword....The slaughter of adult males and the enslavement of women and children were common practice throughout the ancient world. See, for example, Deut. 20:13-14, where the Israelites are enjoined to mete out such treatment to their enemies See also the famous tragedy of the Melians in Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, trans. Crawley( New York, 1951), p. 337." --Aminz 01:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Made some small changes; also the parts about historical relativism ignore that fact that the interpration of Hadith and Qur'an imply that everything contained therein are models for "all time", as such saying something is presentism would be on point if Muslims didn't claim that everything done then is acceptable for today as well. Will add source to the changes I made as soon as I find it again. Gtadoc 03:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well your changes have been removed per WP:OR, speedily so because of the contentious atmosphere over the content within this article. Once the sources are found, the information should be welcomed, I suppose.--C.Logan 05:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why isn't Voltaire mentioned?

Why isn't Voltaire and his criticism of Muhammad mentioned in the article? I'd do it myself, but I am not a native speaker of English. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.101.244.117 (talk) 14:29, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

What are you referring to? Arrow740 01:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean Voltaire who questioned, whether Africans are descended from monkeys or whether the monkeys come from them? A racist who called Africans animals with little or hardly any intelligence? No, I don't think Voltaire can add value to this article. --Raphael1 00:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Every human being is flawed, and likewise every scholar (or philosopher) might make certain erroneous assumptions. If we're playing by such a rule, many of the "responses to criticisms" could likewise be discarded because of the misguided musings of apologists on other topics. Give me a break. I'm no fan of Voltaire, but your basis for excluding him misses the point. Primarily, it's logically flawed: as Voltaire reached one erroneous or bigoted conclusion, you assume that nothing he has said about another (entirely unrelated) topic is of any value whatsoever. That simply doesn't follow, and I'm afraid Voltaire's opinion is about as notable and appropriate here as any other, if not more so than several of the sources listed.--C.Logan 04:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not an entirely unrelated topic, since Islam has been and is to this date a prevalent religion in Africa.--Raphael1 09:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
As was/is Christianity, and shaminism/tribal religions. You prefer to make a connection which does not necessarily follow logically, and it is upon this artificial connection that you base your reasoning. I can criticize Europeans, and I can criticize Christians, but when I criticize one, it doesn't necessarily apply to the other concept, and in most cases it does not at all. Please re-think your reasoning in this discussion.--C.Logan 04:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Christianity was not a prevalent religion in Africa in the 18th century. Apart from the coptic church in Egypt (later Ethiopia) and Christian missions in Congo, Christianity did not exist in Africa at that time. Colonialsm had just started at the African coastline and mainly consisted of slavetrade. Apparently there were only nine million Christians in Africa in 1900. OTOH Islam had already spread across the Maghreb region 1000 years earlier. Yes, there were and are shaminism/tribal religions in Africa as well and I'd never agree to include a racists opinion on any Africans indigenous religion article.--Raphael1 09:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for making this comment with brevity in mind, but I have someplace to be. However, please note that we aren't mind readers, and it's perfectly sound and possible that many individuals quoted and sourced could be "racists" as well, as well as "sexists", "cultural xenophobes", and so on.
You are discounting one of Voltaire's assertions on account of a separate assertion which appears extremely misguided in the modern age. Such a dismissal of arguments is logically fallacious; many ancient writers hit the nail on the head concerning certain subjects, and made grave errors concerning others. This does not mean that we disregard all of their arguments because of the falsehood of one.
Additionally, you're making an assumption concerning the interdependence of two arguments, when no proof for such an assumption has yet been shown. Please realize again that many of the individuals quoted in the article have personal beliefs which may affect their judgment. It is not up to us to determine which arguments are "good enough", but only which are "notable and relevant". If Voltaire has criticized Islam and/or Muhammad, then the material is certainly relevant, regardless of how you feel concerning his bias against Muslims.
Unless we are determined to eliminate scholars with a positive bias as well (i.e. Muslims, Islamophiles, etc.), then your reasoning is fallacious, and in any case the whole notion of eliminating opinions for bias concerns is misguided and misapplied. Hopefully, you understand what I'm saying, here.--C.Logan 18:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
As we want to have an article of reasonable length, we certainly have to make some kind of selection. The question is whether Voltaire would be a good selection or whether there are other critics, who have an untroubled view on that topic. Profound research needs an unbiased approach, otherwise you'll have a tendency to search for confirmation of your bias. I'd reckon, that there are enough critics of Islam, who don't consider a large part of that denomination to be possible descendants of monkeys.--Raphael1 22:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
As I've said above, many of the individuals we've included as it is may very well have prejudices in some other respect. These factors have no bearing on whether or not the criticism presented by the individual is "valid" or "notable". By your logic, the best argumentation in the world can be disregarded because of the individual's personal issues- that's silly. I personally hate what Voltaire has to say, but I'm not going to pretend that he's one of the most influential thinkers of the past millennium, at least here in the West. We're not here to determine the worth of the criticism due to the critic's good deeds in life, or with consideration to his other beliefs. Should we run a screen for every source of information, to be assured that no bias has come into play? That's just silly, and it seems that you're attempting to pioneer a new criterion for whatever reason, though personal bias towards the material may be a possibility.--C.Logan 10:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
We want to write the best article on "Criticism of Muhammad" and yes, being a racists, is derogatory to the reputation of an indiviual and therefore devalues his arguments. If you find that other individuals we've included do have prejudices related to that topic, please name them, as we might be able to replace them with other critics, whos critique is more well-founded than based on prejudice.--Raphael1 11:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FFI and POD

both are websites which promulgate extreme rhetoric and crankery of the worth kind. if anyone can demonstrate how these websites comply with WP:RS, please do so. ITAQALLAH 01:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad "apparently" had a child with Maria - only 1 sentence, hence "marriage" not "sexual activities" should be mentioned in intro.

"Muhammad is criticised for apparently having had a child by a slave girl called Maria or Mariyah" - only "marriages" should be mentioned ~atif msg me - 17:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"sexual activities" Covers both Maria the copt and Aisha in my opinion, we could also add "and polygomous marrages" after sexual activities if thats better? (Hypnosadist) 17:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
relationship with Aisha should not be used as the reason as he had already legally married to her. I would agree with just "polygamous marriages" not "sexual activites". ~atif msg me - 18:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not the marriage, it's the sex. Further the Safiyya "intercourse incident" was with a slave. Arrow740 00:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
If that is the case, then we should remove the word marriage from the dictionary and start using "sexual activities" ~atif msg me - 02:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
A marriage is a contract. If he had married the little girl and hadn't had sex with her until she was an adult, people would probably respect his restraint. So you see, it's not the marriage that's the issue. Arrow740 02:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
As long as he is married, no matter what age she is, it is a legal marriage. pls don't twist the definition of marriage to what you want to portray Muhammad as. You have Indian roots and you know still thousands of marriages are conducted in south Asia where one or both the partner are at an age from infant to 15 years and many would have sexual relationship too. There are millions of people who don't think like you ~atif msg me - 03:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
You're changing the subject. Arrow740 04:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Atif: What has been criticized is that Muhammad used his slaves and a child (Aisha) for sex. His marriages is not the issue, because that is not what he has been criticized for. It is his sexual behavior that has been criticized. -- Karl Meier 08:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

There are 3 persons for which Muhammad is critcized: Aisha, Saffiya and Maria.

  1. Regarding Aisha, it was a legal marriage. As I pointed out, this is a norm to marry a minor in many societies even today. There is no harm in criticizing if some feel (as per their views) that marrying a minor was not a right thing. But again it is a legal marriage and should be stated so.
  2. Regarding Saffiya, it was again a marriage. Read the main article about her (Safiyya_bint_Huyayy#Marriage_to_Muhammad), Muhammad married "Safiyya, the only surviving member of Banu Nadir's ruling family, as part of reconciliation with the Jewish tribe". She was legally married and was not taken as a slave. That is fine if you there are speculations that it should be considered a rape, however she is married and should be stated so.
  3. Regarding Maria, this was the only event I can speculate where a slave was taken by Muhammad. However, its a minor event (just 2 sentences mentioned in the article) and it is disputed as word "apparent" is used and as mentioned there, some claim that Muhammad indeed married her.

I am OK for the term "minor marriage", but these are marriages and legal and should be stated so. However, "sexual activities" is provocative and gives wrong impression that he is involved with illegal activities. ~atif msg me - 04:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Explain. Also, the issue is what critics say. They criticize his sexual actitives, more directly than the marriages themselves. Arrow740 04:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, what critics say is regarding his marriages only (be it with a minor or with someone whose husband was killed by him or with someone taken as a slave and then married), they are not accusing him of adultery/illicit relationships because they cant. ~atif msg me - 15:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
No Atif that is exactly what he is being acused of, Aisha the accusation is hes a pedophile, Safiyya the accusation is its a forced marrage as it is silly to assume a woman who has just seen her entire family killed and enslaved WANTS to get married (but it is a good survival tactic) and finally Maria the copt who was a slave girl who was raped because a slave can't consent to anything. (Hypnosadist) 18:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they accuse him of at least three rapes. It's not the marriage contract(s). Arrow740 19:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The accusation of so-called "rapes" and "pedophilia" by the critics are just their views. However, the base point is that he married them. So as I said before it is fine to use "minor marriage" or "forced marriage", BUT marriage word must be incorporated. Removing "marriage" and just using "sexual activities" gives a false impression that he did not marry but had sexual relationships with a minor/slave etc. OR in other words he committed adultery - which is absolutely wrong. Again, marrying a minor may be a taboo in some societies but are well accepted in others. ~atif msg me - 11:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
We understand your ideas on the matter. The point is to report what the critics say. He have sex with a minor and with slaves. In Islam it's not considered adultery to have sex with a slave. You should read the Qur'an, 5:34 I believe. Arrow740 05:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
regardless of whatever critics allege, these claims require appropriate coverage in secondary reliable sources, as per WP:V. ITAQALLAH 15:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Critics are reliable for their own views. Arrow740 05:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
please prove how using WP:RS. what you're doing here is equivocation. ITAQALLAH 22:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

added marriages in the intro. ~atif msg me - 15:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


There seems to be a contradiction in the article text regarding the age of Aisha. it currently says: "...makes a detailed historical argument that Aisha could not have been more than nine or ten at the time of betrothal, and fifteen at marriage" Footnote 18 references a paper book by Maulana.

Footnote 19 references a webpage discussion of the same book by Maulana, including a direct quotation that says: "...Aisha was at least nine or ten years of age at the time of betrothal, and fourteen or fifteen years at the time of marriage"

So one says, "no more than 9 at betrothal," the other says "at least 9 at betrothal." But they both cite the same book by Maulana. Does anyone have an actual copy of the book to determine one way or the other?

71.162.114.227 04:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

Due to revert warring, I have protected the article. Please discuss the issue in order to come to a consensus. When the matter is resolved, you can request unprotection at WP:RFPP. Thanks. — TKD::Talk 00:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad and the Jews

This is quite a topic. We should have a section about it. Moroccan liberal Abdelhamid Assassi writes:

At first, Muhammad used to pray in the direction of Jerusalem, in order to seek the sympathy and support of the Jews in the [Arabian] Peninsula, who carried great economic and social weight. Then he traded the Jews' direction of prayer for that of the pagans, in order to rally the Arab tribes to his preaching. For this reason he later took revenge on the Jews by expelling them, slaughtering them, robbing them, and taking their women as wives.

translated here. Arrow740 20:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

how does he meet WP:RS? as has been established, independent reliable sources need to discuss the particular criticism. ITAQALLAH 21:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
What are you trying to say? Arrow740 21:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
not every person ever to have made any criticism merits mention. we go by what is objectively discussed in reliable sources. as said above: how does he meet WP:RS? as has been established, independent reliable sources need to discuss the particular criticism. ITAQALLAH 15:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Nice try, but your attempt to change the goalposts (I think that's what you're doing) will not have any effect. Check the link for this one. Arrow740 23:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
it's not "chang[ing] goalposts" for me to request sources adhering to WP:V/WP:RS across all articles. it is shifting goalposts, however, to not apply these standards to particular articles, like "Criticism of...". you directed me to the link, i suppose you're implying that a translation by MEMRI amounts to independent discussion of the criticism. ITAQALLAH 00:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The article will report notable criticisms. Arrow740 05:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] need a response section for each topic in this article

I propose, just like we have criticism and response section in Criticism_of_the_Qur'an article, we should do the same for this and Criticism of Islam article. ~atif msg me - 09:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this a debate, or an article? As this article deals with criticisms, it should not focus extensively on "responding". I think that the most reasonable scenario would result in a 2/3rds focus on explaining critical elements, and 1/3rd of the focus on detailing alternative views on the aforementioned subjects. This is not to say that we should squash scholarship which takes a view which is less condemning of a subject, but we should not actively attempt to apologize, which is an unfortunate trend I see occurring on many Islam-related articles. I'm getting used to seeing published sources swapped out as "unreliable" and being replaced by responses from Geo-cities sites, and that troubles me.--C.Logan 09:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Criticism means "democratic judgment over the suitability of a subject for the intended purposes, as opposed to the authoritarian command, which is meant as an absolute realization of the authority's will, thus not open for debate.". Hence criticism is open to both sides of interpretation and there is no rule for 1/3 or 2/3 content. Dividing section into 2 alternative views keeps the article consistent in its content and its overall message to the reader. ~atif msg me - 09:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that you're looking at the wrong definition of the term. For the context of articles dealing with criticism, the overwhelmingly more common usage of the term (i.e. "disapproval expressed by pointing out faults or shortcomings", "the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding", "the act of criticizing, especially adversely", etc.) is the one intended, as has been shown by the format of all "criticism" articles up unto this point.
Like I'd said, my suggestion for content ratio was not a "rule", but was the most reasonable arrangement- the article intends to cover the adverse opinions concerning the topic (Muhammad), but it is necessary that perspective be placed by including alternate views as well. The last thing that one might want to portray, and this is why I recommend that the "response"-type information be kept on the back-burner, is that any particular view is greater, or superior, to another. The coverage of criticism should be more extensive, but no derision of the alternative views presented is really acceptable.
On the other hand, and this is my biggest concern, there should be absolutely no apologetics within this article. As impassioned as you may be concerning your beliefs, you do not need to "answer up" in an article which focuses on adverse opinions. Presenting all the opinions is an important element of any article, but pushing a favorable view or tacking on rebuttals wherever possible is a consequence of approaching the article with apologetic intent, and should be avoided entirely. Like I've said, such behavior is evident when a critical, published author is removed as an "unreliable source", and in his place new information is placed which is sourced to a non-notable website contributor. This is the type of contribution we don't want in an encyclopedia, and is an example of POV-pushing in a sensitive article.--C.Logan 12:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I took the definition from Wikipedia article on Criticism. Also here is another definition in Cambridge dictionary which is "when you give your opinion or judgment about the good or bad qualities of something or someone". I believe criticism is judging from both perspective. ~atif msg me - 15:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Atif. The word has more than one definition, but in English, as you might know, one usage is entirely more common. The more you read the current usage, the more apparent it becomes that the definition you're quoting has fallen into disfavor between the two. For any project, ideology, etc., journalists will cite "supporters" and "critics", the latter of which are always coming from an adverse viewpoint. It's not that you're wrong, but it's just that in these articles, the topic is what people say that's bad about the article.
Again, it shouldn't fall into a mess of people criticizing Muhammad with OR, but should cover the criticism he has suffered- and as you know, he's gotten quite a bit of criticism over the years, whether it's warranted or not. Again, what I'm saying is that the definition you're referring to isn't wrong in general, but incorrect in this particular context. Here's another example of a word which has several meanings, but in usage refers almost exclusively to one: terrific. 99.99% of the time, this word has a positive connotation when an English speaker uses it in a statement. Seeing an individual quoted as saying "Watching the burning support beams collapse to the ground inches from my body was a terrific experience" will confuse a great many English speakers, though it's technically correct: "terrific" can be a "extremely good; wonderful" or "causing terror; terrifying".
As it is here, the word "criticism" refers overwhelmingly to negative reactions, although the definition you refer to is technically correct and is sometimes used, but not commonly. There are other words which usually replace "criticism" for the definition you're presenting. From the thesaurus, here's a few: assessment, evaluation, examination, and analysis.--C.Logan 15:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your detailed analysis of the terminology. I can agree that criticism may mostly mean the "negative" aspect of evaluation. But it does not prohibit anyone to make a positive assessment of the subject. we should also look from a broader perspective that Wikipedia is a collaborative project for anyone to edit. Hence, it gives the ability to those who believe that the criticisms in the article are wrong and biased and they would want to respond to it within the realm of the definition of "criticism". As you said, not to criticize it with OR. Based on that, we should not and we cannot stop those who want to respond to those negative evaluations. I believe you also agree with me that this article must not be made another Islamophobic site. ~atif msg me - 15:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ibn Warraq is not reliable

Can someone show how Ibn Warraq is reliable? I doubt he is reliable. In addition he definitely qualifies as an extremist source.Bless sins 01:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That seems - tautological? I don't think that's the right word. If you don't want others to use him as a source, then the onus is on you to show why he is unreliable. Also, why do you think he's an extremist source? Alexwoods 12:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. According to WP:V "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." So the onus (to show one is reliable) is upon whoever ADDS material. Since I'm removing it the onus is not on me.Bless sins 00:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Could you please clarify the points on which you find Warraq to be an unreliable source? I'm not asking you to make any sort of arguments, but I'd like to know what your major issues are. I think that the main issue concerning Warraq is his anonymity, which makes it difficult to determine his expertise in a particular field. However, given the circumstances which cause the need for such anonymity, I'm of the opinion that this is a special case. If you'd give me a few points to work with, I could do some more research into the subject, and see whether or not any conclusion can arise.--C.Logan 05:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
C.Logan you miss the point. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Thus whoever adds Warraq needs to come up with some justification. Not the one who removes him. Bless sins 13:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Bless, re-read what I said. I'm asking you to explain to me why you think he's unreliable, not to prove anything. Sources are added all the time, but you remove this one because you claim he is not reliable. I want to know why you believe that he's not before I waste my time looking in the wrong directions to provide evidence which is of no concern to you. Reliability is a muddy concept at times, and individual scholars can not be judged in black-and-white terms.--C.Logan 17:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I think he is unreliable because he seems to be an "extremist" "anti-religious" source, and thus unreliable per WP:RS#Extremist_sources. Why do I call Warraq "extremist"? Because of his anti-Islamic views. He calls the faith of more than a billion people a "totalitarian ideology". He further says that the 9/11 attacks "reflect the teachings of Islam". I think that should make it clear.Bless sins 21:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As of now, no one has justified the removal of sourced content from this article. Can those who are removing content please do so below?Bless sins 13:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I would very definitely have to agree with the last comment above. It is extremely dubious to believe that a source is unreliable, as stated above, because of "extremist" views, particularly based on the two statements above. Having said that, a rather clearer claim to the source's either notability or reliability than I have seen might be useful as well. John Carter 19:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
To which comment are you referring?--C.Logan 19:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. Maybe I should amplify. It has I think more than once been the case that one of the best informed, most reliable sources on a subject has had, ahem, personal views which many people find disagreeable. John Strugnell was and is an excellent scholar, whose views on the Dead Sea Scrolls are among the most reputable out there, despite his, ahem, can we say "controversial" statement that Judaism is a "horrible religion". Scholarship and good PR don't even come close to going hand in hand. On that basis, I find the exlusion of ibn Warraq's work as being unreliable to be completely unsupportable. Having said that, I don't see an explicit assertion of why his views should be included on the page, which would probably be beneficial. John Carter 21:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
John Carter, I don't make the rules but only follow them.
You said, "It is extremely dubious to believe that a source is unreliable, as stated above, because of "extremist" views..."
WP:RS#Extremist_sources is clear that extremist sources are not reliable except on articles about themselves. Warraq's views quoted above aren't simply his private beliefs, but he has published those views.
As for John Strugnell, your analogy may be irrelevant. He is/was a lecturer and professor. Is the same true for Ibn Warraq? Infact, a professor has stated that Ibn Warraq's agenda "is not scholarship" (see Ibn_Warraq#Criticism).Bless sins 01:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slavery after abolition

"Some scholars criticise the Islamic world for allegedly having allowed slavery to persist for some time after it was abolished in the West." There is no allegedly about it, slavery persisted everywhere the west couldn't impose its views, can we get this changed. (Hypnosadist) 16:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I find that wording a little questionable as well.--C.Logan 17:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Does anyone know how to appeal protection, or the process by which we could apply to make changes to this article? I'm dismayed that it was protected right after Bless sins made one of his whitewash / censoring changes. Admins, if you are reading, please look at the edit he made and look at his edit history. Virtually all of his changes are removing unflattering references to Islam on shaky pretenses. I don't think his version of the article should be the protected one. Alexwoods 17:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, this is not the only article that Bless sins is disrupting at the moment or has disrupted in the past. Some sort of community action must follow. Beit Or 20:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what the protocol for such action would be, but I would support it wholeheartedly. Alexwoods 20:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think there would be widespread support for some kind of sanction. Arrow740 21:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Instead of making personal attacks, why don't you discuss the article content. Let's see what my edits, that are alleged to be "whitewash / censoring", really do:[1]

1.I put a fact tags on an unsourced statements, I removed other unsourced statements.

2.I added content from various sources which were removed by Arrow740 and others.

3. I removed content that was sourced to the following unreliable sources:

  • Ibn Warraq
  • answering-christianity
  • answering-islam

4.I removed content that wasn't criticism:

  • Daniel W. Brown, who didn't pass any judgment, thus did not criticize Muhammad (nor defended him against criticism).

5.Finally, I re-arranged content:

After examining the above, a reasonable wikipedian will concur that what I did is not "disruptive" but in accordance with wiki policies.Bless sins 15:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I have unprotected the page, per a request filed at WP:RFPP. Let's keep edit wars off, and if there is an issue, please work it out here at the talk page :). Jmlk17 09:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
According to Yahel Guhan's comment the dispute has been resolved.[2]
The last comment made on this talk page before Yahel Guhan requested unprotection is this one made by me (I made other small edits after that). So I'm assuming that there is no dispute regarding my edits as justified above (or at least that's what Yahel Guhan believes).Bless sins 01:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
There are multiple editors calling for action against you. Yahel Guhan will hopefully speak for himself, but he was probably referring to the substantial concensus that your whitewashing is unacceptable. Arrow740 04:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Bless sins should be commended for excising unreliably sourced material and challenging the doublespeak exuded by yourself in defending poor sources on certain articles. see WP:POVFORK: "However, it is possible for article spinouts to become POV forks. If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article [[XYZ]], then it is also inadmissible at a spinout [[Criticism of XYZ]]. Spinouts are intended to improve readability and navigation, not to evade Wikipedia's content policies." - Ibn Warraq and all of the other partisan sources are unacceptable on Muhammad, so they are unacceptable here too. ITAQALLAH 09:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
They are perfectly acceptable at those articles if we choose to include criticisms there. Arrow740 16:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
in what way do they fulfill the standards outlined at WP:RS? are you ready to answer this question yet? ITAQALLAH 08:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I've already answered it. If you wish to continue playing this game, I can. WP:RS states "A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Ibn Warraq's works are the most authoritive sources for criticism of Islam. Please keep this diff handy and refer to it as needed. You may also wish to read again what Merzbow wrote when you claimed that critics such as Ibn Warraq and Robert Spencer are not secondary sources. Thanks. Arrow740 07:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
And why are Ibn Warraq's works "the most authoritive sources". Because you said so? You need to come up with evidence justifying the above, and until you that, Ibn Warraq stays OUT.Bless sins 19:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I could do the same thing and demand you prove that anything you have ever added is an "authoritative source," using an authoritative source, of course, which could have to be confirmed as authoritative, etc. Your disruption will likely cause an RfC. Arrow740 19:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Arrow740, go ahead. Go ahead and demand me to prove that Watt is an "authoritative source". I'm not going to run away from the question, but will answer it. I wish you only did the same.Bless sins 19:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A tendency you have demonstrated across wikipedia is to make a huge number of changes pushing your POV and then revert-war for weeks when reasonable users oppose them. These are always obvious nonsense, but you post clearly misleading defenses of this material on the talk and then say "per talk" in edit summaries until you're blocked for 3RR or the article is locked. In the future please make smaller changes and discuss them before you provoke a revert war. Arrow740 20:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740, answer my question: why are Ibn Warraq's works "the most authoritive sources"? Don't run away from the question, answer it.Bless sins 20:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

All other prominent critics of Islam acknowledge him as such, and he has published multiple books on the topic. To confirm these statements look at the website of prominent critics such as Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Ali Sina, or any others you care to think of. To find his books you can look on amazon. Arrow740 20:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

To support one unreliable source with another unreliable source doesn't make sense. What makes you think Ali Sina is a reliable source? BTW, don't make general comments ("other prominent critics of Islam acknowledge him as such"), provide me with direct evidence (i.e. A says B about Ibn Warraq, and here is the source). Ibn Warraq, infact, has been called a non-scholarly source, by a professor, (Fred Donner, professor in Near Eastern studies, Donner, Fred. (2001) Review: The Quest for the Historical Muhammad. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2000. Middle East Studies Association Bulletin, University of Chicago).</ref>

Bless sins 20:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You're just not making sense. The subject area is criticism of Islam. His standing is determined by what others in that field think of him, just like in any other field. This is a bad faith request, as you know Ibn Warraq's standing in this area. Arrow740 20:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I can mediate between these opinions. Ibn Warraq has an ax to grind, and he uses evidence in the irresponsible manner often found among convinced partisans. However, there is no denying his notability as a critic of "Islam." To keep him out of this article seems absurd. On the other hand, citing him as if he were a scholarly authority seems no less absurd. We should be judicious in using sources who stake out polemical positions as clearly as Ibn Warraq does, even in a "Critcism" article. (That goes for pro-Muslim polemicists as well. I admit I can't think of one right now, at least not one with celebrity status.) -- Rob C. alias Alarob 00:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Alarob's ideas. Perhaps we should note Warraq's standing as a polemicist, while still including his assertions? This notation would, at the very least, show that his opinion may be skewed by his agenda. Individual readers could then make up their own mind on his trustworthiness.--C.Logan 03:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The article is about criticism. Arrow740 04:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm well aware, but I'm trying to support an idea which would act as a compromise which may satisfy all parties involved. I'm attempting to end this edit war without compromising information which I feel rightfully belongs within this article. Ibn Warraq is, in my view, a polemicist. I'm sure Bless sins agrees on this, at least. However, I find that the slant of his writing does not largely effect the veracity of information presented. Bless sins surely disagrees here. Noting his role as a polemicist will make it clear that his intentions are to argue against, and thus must be scrutinized on a personal basis. On this concept, I see a closer end to the warring here than any of the back-and-forth argumentation that persists.--C.Logan 05:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Alarob, i have no interest in keeping Warraq or Spencer out of this article per se. if they are as prominent as is being made out, then we will surely have seen some independant reliable coverage/description of the critiques they forward. that is what's being requested, in place of primary source usage and random selection and bloating of particular criticisms. as for other sources such as answering islam, faithfreedom and so on, i am sure we can agree that these kinds of sources should be refrained from. partisan sources being hailed as "reliable for criticism" is a canard which just doesn't stand up to WP:SPINOUT or WP:RS. ITAQALLAH 12:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
You haven't argued anything, just stated things that you've stated before. What "independant reliable coverage" did you have in mind, and why? Arrow740 05:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I think Itaqallah has made the strongest argument so far. While other arguments are also legitimate, they are vague as they don't clearly draw the line between notable and non-notable criticism. I agree that if criticism is notable it will have been covered by reliable sources (independent of the critic). For example, Watt covers criticism against Muhammad in his book "Muhammad in Medina" (Chapter: "His alleged moral failures").Bless sins 11:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
<reset>"independant reliable coverage" refers to book reviews by reliable sources. considering Spencer has a few best sellers (apparently), it shouldn't be too hard to locate reviews of his work which will among other things describe some of the content. in the same way that we would use secondary reliable sources discussing the polemic of John of Damascus (instead of referring to the primary source itself) or any other indivudual of partisan flavour (thus demonstrating the specific allegations are noteworthy), as mandated by WP:V and WP:RS. Spencer himself isn't reliable (and is a primary source considering the way he is used on these articles), there is no such field of study known as "criticism of Islam" (you also can't be an expert in it by mere virtue of pushing a partisan view), nor is he an expert in any matter related to Islam. the same goes for Warraq, and especially all partisan websites. Arrow, you tried to justify Warraq's inclusion on the basis of WP:RS earlier, although i am sure that even you will admit it was quite weak. Warraq isn't considered authoritative by experts (whoever partisans consider authoritative is of no relevance) on any topic related to Islam. as you concede that meeting WP:RS is necessary, please positively verify how he meets the following criteria mentioned therein:
  • "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made."
    • "A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Evaluation of reliability will depend on the credibility of the author and the publication, along with consideration of the context. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight"
    • "Sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight should only be used in articles about the sources themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources."
    • "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications."
  • "The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals" (Scholarship) - in fact, for this point we have a contraindication in the form of the significant amount of criticism and negative feedback Warraq receives in academic journals and publications.
  • Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution. (Extremist sources)
i would repeat that this does not mean that the crticiques forwarded by Warraq, Spencer et al. are not relevant here; it means that the arguments made must be discussed by third party reliable sources, owing to the lack of reliability associated with these individuals and their publishing houses. ITAQALLAH 11:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's my take on recent developments:

  • The discussion and the reversions don't necessarily correspond to each other. So far the discussion has centered completely on Ibn Warraq. The reversions, however, are much broader and include all the issues I pointed out on my edit on 15:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC). Someone needs to discuss each issue before he/she reverts.
  • This is an interesting shift. We are going from scholarly criticism of Muhammad to merely notable one. Actually there is ample precedence for this: consider Allegations of Israeli apartheid. The article, for example, quotes Palestinian prime minster Ahmed Qureia. While Qureia isn't a scholar, his opinion is representative of the Palestinians, a significant party in the discussion of Israeli apartheid. Is there a policy that is devoted to this issue?
    • I agree that Ibn Warraq is a polemic. So are notorious Christian scholars (who should be in this article) and people with marginal notability (who shouldn't be in this article). The question is where do we draw the line?
  • Finally, my presence on wikipedia will be limited for the next ten days, and I'll rejoin the discussion thereafter.Bless sins 02:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
You need to provide the justifications for the disputed changes in detail. Arrow740 05:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I have in my edit on 15:42, 22 September 2007 (this section). That may not extremely detailed, but is far more comprehensive than any attempted justification on your part.Bless sins 10:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
You need to provide the justifications for the disputed changes in detail. Arrow740 20:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

<reset> A copy and paste of my comment on 5:42, 22 September 2007, for users who refuse to scroll up:

1.I put a fact tags on an unsourced statements, I removed other unsourced statements.

2.I added content from various sources which were removed by Arrow740 and others.

3. I removed content that was sourced to the following unreliable sources:

  • Ibn Warraq
  • answering-christianity
  • answering-islam

4.I removed content that wasn't criticism:

  • Daniel W. Brown, who didn't pass any judgment, thus did not criticize Muhammad (nor defended him against criticism).

5.Finally, I re-arranged content:

BTW Arrow740, I don't understand how you can argue against the reliability of a book published by the University of Texas press ([[3]]), but consider something written by Ibn Warraq to be reliable.Bless sins 20:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If there is contentious material that has been unsourced for some time, it should be removed. If there is content from known publishers that is not disputed, it should not be removed.
Haykal, Nomani, and Watt are fine. The answering-islamd and christianity sites, it goes without saying, aren't reliable sources for anything other than the opinions of the people running those sites.
As far as Ibn Warraq goes, he is a notable critic with an axe to grind, as mentioned before. If there is a secondhand source such as CNN or the Beeb with a report along the lines of, "Well know critic of Islam Ibn Warraq says such and such and it was notable," then that's fine. Pulling quotes directly out of his book without any such source proving its notability or wider acceptance, then that's bordering on POV pushing.
This really shouldn't be this complicated. MezzoMezzo 12:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree (mostly) with MezzoMezzo's statement above, and think it represents consensus. Arrow740 (or any others), do you object?Bless sins 00:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok then, I assume that there is consensus on the above proposal.Bless sins 14:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fazlur Rahman

While this addition is apparently good information, it appears to be a tangent which digresses from the topic of "Violence" to discuss one particular statement within another quotation extensively. This doesn't seem to be the right place to add such information.

Needless to say, the section concerns the criticism of violent acts perpetrated by Muhammad- this addition appears to ignore the quote's purpose for the sake of arguing with its framework, even to the point of surpassing the original's size.

Am I simply going crazy? Again, this doesn't seem to be properly placed; at best, it should probably be reduced somewhat, for the sake of limited relevance to the sectional topic and even to the paragraph to which it is responding.--C.Logan 10:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ibn Ishaq

Ibn Ishaq does NOT criticize the prophet. It is very highly unlikely that he does. So Ibn Ishaq in himself may not be used as a critic.Bless sins 04:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, if someone has objection to the above they should post it below. But please don't add Ibn Ishaq to the article, unless he is used by a secondary source either criticizing Muhammad, or defending him from criticism.Bless sins (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I apologize that I re-added him without posting here first (I hadn't yet seen this topic). I don't see a rule stating that every source offered in the article must be critical or apologetic; some sources simply provide detail that might not be easily found elsewhere.
I see the presentation as useful for providing detail on the events in question- whether or not the editor who originally added this information was trying to imply something with this text is another issue, but the text, as I see it, is useful. Not every piece of information in here has polarity, and many statements are there to provide context or detail.
One might criticize an event without providing much detail about it; it is useful, then, to find a source which complements it with the missing information. Feel free to disagree; I don't have much of a problem with the other removals (save for the removal of Brown, which I think was, like this case, a bit too strict).--C.Logan (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, it's good that you are using the talk page, as this content has been added back without any justification.
Secondly, my reason for removal is based upon WP:NOR. The policy says:

If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the topic of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.(emphasis added)

Ibn Ishaq isn't related to the topic of this article, which is "Criticism of Muhammad". Any source in this article must be directly related to the topic of the article (i.e. Criticism of Muhammad).Bless sins (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to remove the vandalism?

There is a racial slur on the first page of this article. It seems to be embedded in a way that doesn't cause it to show up in the text when I click on "Edit this page." Does anyone know how to fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.69.130.82 (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It would help if you mentioned the slur, so that people can search for it on the page.--C.Logan (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ref name="Oussani"

ref name="Oussani"

It's just gone. William Ortiz (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


I noticed more ref tags saying the ref isn't there. I don't know where to find these references that are now gone. William Ortiz (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why no mention of pedophilia?

He married a 6 year old girl and had sex with her when she was 9. I'm sure that was not common practice at the time (and if it was, some proof provided by a professional historian would be nice). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.57.18.184 (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It does say that. Read the article. It also explains it was common practice at the time. Age of consent is something that came up in the last couple hundred years. William Ortiz (talk) 10:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious

What sexual activities is the lead referring to, that do not already fall under "marriages"?Bless sins (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked through it and can only find that that it applies to the marriage of his second wife, which the age thing wasn't criticized until modern times. The sentence with the word "sexual" in it should be rewritten. William Ortiz (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Standards for criticism articles

We will probably need mediation on sources for this article. Until then I will be enforce standards lay in place by itaqallah here. Arrow740 (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And what exactly in Itaqallah's standards leads you to beleive that Nomani isn't a reliable source?Bless sins (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
He is an Indo-Muslim revivalist and is given the title "Maulana." This shows his to be a partisan religious source. His books are not published by reputable publishers nor are they vetted by the academic community or given legitimacy by reliable sources. If we are going to adhere to WP:RS here he is out. Arrow740 (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
He was a professor at a university. Is there a wiki policy that says an Indian or Muslim ("Indo-Muslim") can't be a reliable source?
BTW, there are various souces that call him a historian. Plus there was consensus that he is a reliable source. see thisBless sins (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
So you and itaqallah stating that he was and bring ignored is now a concensus? He was a historian. So is Robert Spencer. Having a position at Aligarh Muslim University which was founded to promote an Indo-Muslim revival is a sign of partisanship. Arrow740 (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Robert Spencer doesn't even compare with Nomani. Spencer was never a professor at a university. Nor is Spencer called a 'historian' in academic journals, highly esteemed history books published by university presses. Nomani, however, is.Bless sins (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be forgetting the guideline. Being called a historian is not the same as getting a PhD or being published by reputable publishing houses. His involvement in the Aligarh Movement is quite the opposite from holding a professorship at a Western university. Arrow740 (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
What makes you think that only Westerners can be reliable sources? Wikipedia is not racist, and reliable sources can come from Western countries, or they can come from India. They can be Christian, secular or Muslim.Bless sins (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Read my post again. Arrow740 (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
If an author is credited as an expert by other experts then that too may be an indication of reliability, as is the case with L. Caetani. (that discussion I believe Arrow may recall) ITAQALLAH 04:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
By this rubric Spencer is reliable considering Daniel Pipes' endorsement. Let's see if he has endorsed Ibn Warraq. Arrow740 (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
See my comment again: "other experts" - I showed that Caetani was considered a scholar in the academic literature - nobody questions his scholarship, the same cannot be said about Spencer. ITAQALLAH 00:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Arrow, I welcome your reformed- and improved- understanding of our content policies (I hope it's not some sort of pointish endeavour on your part). As for Nomani, if his reliability is established, and he is discussing a particular criticism, it's fine to include him. ITAQALLAH 03:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Same goes for any source. Arrow740 (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
If you want to treat sources for this article just like sources for any other, we can gut it. Arrow740 (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
That is, after all, what WP:SPINOUT says. ITAQALLAH 14:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The material removed here has been sourced to Haykal, an apologist (according to Uri Rubin) with no qualifications, Maulana Muhammad Ali, an admitted propagandist, unreliable partisan websites, and Muqtedar Khan who is completely unqualified in this area. Arrow740 (talk) 09:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I see no problem with that. Please also remove the material sourced to Arlandson, Warraq, Assassi, etc. ITAQALLAH 14:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This edit summary is quite hypocritical considering BS's removals of statements of critics generally considered reliable for critics' views. Arrow740 (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Your own statement comes across as the same too, are you still maintaining this false notion of "reliable for criticism"? ITAQALLAH 01:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I made the same statement, and deleted neither. So I was not hypocritical. Arrow740 (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
You are deleting one set of partisan material, while your above comment presumes the reliability of the other. Please clarify your position. ITAQALLAH 02:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
You are also deleting one set of partisan material. So? It depends on how you use the word reliability. If we're using it in the context of the guideline WP:RS then that's one thing, if we're using sources considered reliable in the non wiki-jargon sense for partisan views that's another. Arrow740 (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I have been entirely consistent in my approach to sources. Ok, I shall specify: please clarify your position as to whether or not those sources conform to Wikipedia's reliability requirements. ITAQALLAH 23:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
No, you haven't. You removed the entire criticism; you couldn't have left just the response. Arrow740 (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I could have removed Arlandson, and moved the rest of the material above to the section which contains similar attacks. Could you clarify your position as requested above? ITAQALLAH 00:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that is the only place those apologetics would be appropriate. Which source are you referring to in your request? Arrow740 (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edit warring, protection

There is quite a bit of back-and-forth edit warring here by experienced editors recently. I think part of the problem is that the reverts and edits to the article are coming faster than the discussion on this talk page. It should be the opposite when there is a disagreement. Reverts should be explained fully on the talk page, and conversations should not be carried out in edit summaries. As you can see, the unfortunate reult of discussing things in the edit summaries is that the other person can only discuss back by making an edit and reverting you, so it's a vicious and unproductive cycle. I've protected the page for a short time, just 24 hours, in the hopes that you'll all discuss here before making controversial changes that are likely to be reverted, and then continue doing that even when the protection expires. Thanks! Dmcdevit·t 01:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the protection. Hopefully we'll sort this out. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
No one is at 3 reverts. Arrow740 (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Edit war. Dmcdevit·t 02:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Haykal

Haykal's book is a reliable source. It was approved by the Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs, Cairo, Egypt. Haykal himself was major Egyptian official. Please keep in mind that Egypt is the 5th largest Muslim state in the world.Bless sins (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask this question a different way: what is it that makes Robert Spencer reliable - in your view - but doesn't make Haykal reliable? I desperately await your response.Bless sins (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

We're not discussing Robert Spencer but Halyak or whatever his name is. I havent even heard of this Halyak guy. For starters, a lot of people know who Robert Spencer is. The same cannot be said of this Mr. Halyak. I didnt know who he was. Why dont you tell me why he's reliable? Spencer has written 7 books including 2 best sellers on topics related to Islam. Has Mr. Halyak done anything close to this? Also tell me how according to you, Warraq is less reliable than Halyak? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt57, I want to make sure you don't apply any double standards on wikipedia.
"a lot of people know who Robert Spencer is." Who is "a lot of people"?
"I didnt know who he was." So just because you don't know some scholar, he isn't a reliable source? If that is your argument, then its the most absurd I've ever seen.
Him and his work are reliable (or at least notable) because:
  • His book is endorsed by the the Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs, an official agency of Egypt, one of the largest Muslim nations in the world. By contrast, the American government has never endorsed any of Spencer's books. (Also to be noted is that Haykal was the Minister of education, Spencer has never held any such post).
  • Britannica considers his work as a "useful" biography of Muhammad.
  • (Source: "Muhammad." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.)
  • His work is considered an example of "scientific historical research".
  • (Source: "The Reader-"Another Production": The Reception of Haykal's Biography of Muhammad and the Shift of Egyptian Intellectuals to Islamic Subjects in the 1930s" by Israel Gershoni. Poetics Today, Vol. 15, No. 2, p. 245. Published by Duke University Press.)
  • Haykal is considered a "thinker", an "intellectual" or "important intellectual".
  • (Source: Shawky S. Zeidan. "Review: Islam and the Search for Social Order in Modern Egypt: A Biography of Muhammad Husayn Haykal" The International Journal of African Historical Studies, Vol. 17, No. 4. (1984), pp. 755)
  • (Source: Book reviews by Jacob M. Landau in Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 106, No. 2. (Apr. - Jun., 1986), pp. 383. Landau is from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.)
  • (Source: Selma Botman. "Review: Egypt and the Crisis of Islam". British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 19, No. 2. (1992), p. 216.)
  • Haykal's book too was popular, and remains to be (but that doesn't make him reliable).Bless sins (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
You didnt have to give me all that. You could have given me a link to Muhammad Husayn Haykal which would also have worked. Fine, Haykal is acceptable but the source you tied it to is not. Please find another source which is reliable. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
None of this is relevant. "Poetics Today" is hardly a reliable source for determining experts on Islam. Uri Rubin calls Haykal an apologist, and Haykal has no qualifications, whether or not he is an "intellectual." What nonsense. Arrow740 (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Matt57: Then the only obstacle that remains for the restoration of Haykal is me going to the library and personally verifying what "witness-pioneer" has said. In that case I urge that no one restore Haykal until either I, or Matt57, or another user has verified for themselves that Haykal indeed makes this argument.Bless sins (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Read WP:RS. The fact that this person is called an intellectual does not make him a reliable source. Read it now. Uri Rubin, a qualified scholar, says his book his apologetics. You know that. We have the same situation with Haykal that we do with Ibn Warraq. Arrow740 (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The new policy on reliable sources says "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications." As I have demonstrated above, Haykal has the respect of scholars, an official Islamic organization and an encyclopedia.Bless sins (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Read WP:RS. The fact that this person is called an intellectual does not make him a reliable source. Read it now. Uri Rubin, a qualified scholar, says his book his apologetics. As regards Islam he is the only scholar of Islam that has commented on Haykal that I know. We have the same situation with Haykal that we do with Ibn Warraq. Haykal is not respected in the Islamic studies community (if not, you certainly haven't proven it) and his publications are endorsed by partisan organizations only. Arrow740 (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I prefer to read WP:SOURCES, it is more detailed. The fact he is called an "intellectual" means the sources respect him (with regards to his publications). Thereby he satisfies "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. (emphasis added)" "Uri Rubin calls Haykal an apologist" Can you provide the source? Even if he does call him an apologist, Daniel C. Peterson, a professor, has labeled Rodinson as "Marxist".(source: Peterson, Daniel. Muhammad, Prophet of God. p. 180) Does that make Rodinson an unreliable source?Bless sins (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
You removed the Rubin quote from Satanic Verses yourself multiple times. Go check it again. Being an intellectual does not imply that someone is a reliable scholar of Islam. Good luck proving otherwise. Can you find any of Haykal's publications that you can prove are "mainstream?" Again, good luck. And no, Marxists are not disqualified from being reliable sources, just as Muslims are not. Arrow740 (talk) 07:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't play games with me. If I did something on wikipedia, provide the diffs. I asked you for a source on Rubin. Either you provide the source, or you can't make claims about him. "Marxists are not disqualified from being reliable sources, just as Muslims are not" Agreed. I will not remove Rodinson, and you will not remove Haykal.Bless sins (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe my statement was not long enough. Muslims are not excluded because they are Muslim; Haykal is excluded because he is partisan and unreliable. See Uri Rubin, editor, The Life of Muhammad. Ashgate, 1998, page xviii. Arrow740 (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

<reset>Ok, so before Haykal was being excluded because he was apologetic. Now because he is partisan. Who says he is partisan? Who says 'partisan' sources should be excluded from wikipedia? As for reliability I've provided evidence above. I'm tired of repeating this. Please check out the evidence provided.Bless sins (talk) 09:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You have shown that his intellect is respected. I have shown that his work is not respected as scholarship of Islam. Let's move on. Arrow740 (talk) 10:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I was ready to move the when I started this section. I have known from the beginning that he is a reliable source. The more you contest this, the longer this'll take.Bless sins (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, no qualifications and no reputable publishers. Arrow740 (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
His qualities are listed by academic journals above, as I have said repeatedly. Do you have any new argument against him?Bless sins (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
BlessSins could you please respond to Arrow's arguments? Plus, we can still not use that website as a source whether its verified or not. For example, Geocities websites are not used as links in refs section even if they contain information that has been verified. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
That's what I said: someone must go to the library and verify for themselves what the book says.Bless sins (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Haykal is a reliable source for the Muslim view. The Khaybar article in EoI finds him notable enough to quote his view for example. The very fact that Haykal has an article in the Encyclopedia of Islam proves his notability. Regarding the refutations based on Haykal being "pro-Muslim", Martin Kramer says that Rodinson's work, though valuable, has a polemical style; does that mean that by the same logic Rodinson should be avoided? --Be happy!! (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Anything he has had published by a reliable publisher could be considered. Arrow740 (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Who are you quoting with those quotations marks? No one used that word. You're making this up. As long as we're all clear on that. Arrow740 (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Arrow, Deedat is a notable Muslim apologetic just as Spencer is a notable critic. Please stop this. Haykal is a notable Muslim scholar and his views can be cited as a Muslim POV. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Spencer is different because Daniel Pipes, who has a PhD in Islamic History, has endorsed his approach to criticism. Deedat has no such endorsement. Itaqallah removed all of Ibn Warraq's statements; notability isn't enough anymore. Arrow740 (talk) 10:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Really? From when Daniel Pipes has such authority to endorse the scholarship of others. You probably want to change WP:RS then. Arrow, this is getting tiresome.--Be happy!! (talk) 11:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to this. If you're tired, go to sleep. Arrow740 (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
You are confusing two things. If say EoI quotes an scholar, it tells that the author considered the person worthy enough to mention his view. Spencer is a hired polemic. Daniel Pipe himself is known for being a critic of Islam. --Be happy!! (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
You said "The very fact that Haykal has an article in the Encyclopedia of Islam proves his notability." Which article? Arrow740 (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Article titled "Muḥammad Ḥusayn Haykal" at EoI.--Be happy!! (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Though that indicates notability, it doesn't make him a reliable source. Arrow740 (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
He is notable for the Muslim POV. What on the earth are you talking about? If you say that one prof says that he is pro-Muslim , another prof says that Rodinson's bio has a polemical style but you are freely using it.--Be happy!! (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Aminz, we can mention Haykal's views so long as they are relayed by a reliable source, which is likely in some cases considering his prominence (and that he has a EoI article). That's a fair balance between spamming critiques/responses (which is the case on many of these articles) and mentioning none at all - simply relay that which has been relayed by third party reliable sources (or sources which are themselves reliable). As long as that is done, with regard for maintaining neutrality, the quality of articles will improve as a result. ITAQALLAH 23:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
By the standards which itaqallah has been rigidly enforcing with edit warring, he is not reliable for the Muslim POV. Another, reliable source would have to quote him. Rodinson's work is reliable by wikipedia standards. Arrow740 (talk) 11:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This is "Criticism of Islam" article and we have already used all sorts of critics simply because they are notable, not because they are reliable. Your argument for the reliability of Spencer is weak. The practice that we for long had was that in Criticism of X articles, notability matters. --Be happy!! (talk) 11:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Notability still matters. I was fine with the status quo until people started removing all sorts of things and refusing to listen to me, so I guess concensus changed. Arrow740 (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Aminz please note that Haykal is reliable (and also notable). I have demonstrated the reliability above, and Matt57 seemed to agree with his reliability, (but disagreed with the reliability of a particular website).Bless sins (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Please not that Haykal is not reliable, though notable. I have demonstrated his lack of qualifications above. If the publisher is reliable, that's a different story. BS has only showed he's notable, certainly not qualified. Arrow740 (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
All you've demonstrated is that he you don't like him. You have not quoted any source, so how can you demonstrate something?Bless sins (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You are being disruptive. Refusing to acknowledge the statements of others is a WP:POINT violation. Arrow740 (talk) 08:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Matt57 said he was ok with him, Aminz leaned towards him. You said you are opposed to him, but did not give any valid reason. Who am I not acknowledging?Bless sins (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

<r> Bless Sins, Haykul seems questionable and Itaqallah has said so too. Do you realize that he doesnt have any peer reviewed stuff and nothing published under any academic presses? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say Haykal was "questionable". Did you read my response about peer review on my talk page? ITAQALLAH 23:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cite error

The "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named _____" need to be fixed.Bless sins (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Itaqallah's edit

Itaqallah moved up the quote from Yusuf Ali to the top of the article: Yusuf Ali claims that the accusation that Muhammad was possessed was similar to the accusation levelled at Moses by the Pharaoh. This comes in a comment to a verse in the Qur'an that claims that the same charge was made against all of God's prior messengers (thus discounting its weight).

I disagree with this on two grounds. The section is about the historical criticism of non-Muslims. If you would like to include the corresponding responses from Muslims, the heading should be changed to "historical criticism of non-Muslims and Muslim apologetics". Secondly, what makes Yusuf Ali notable enough to comment on such matter. It should be mentioned that the Qur'an made that argument in reaction to accusations of possession of Muhammad. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is to remove that sentence from Yusuf Ali altogether. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't have much of an opinion on this. I just thought it was a bit silly to have a section containing a single sentence so I relocated it to another section where I thought it might be better placed. ITAQALLAH 23:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The "Prophet" Muhammad

I see no mention here of the fact that Muhammad is known as a prophet, yet never actually made any prophecy in the Qur'an that came true. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

a prophet is not necessarily a seer, so your point is moot. also, the Qur'an itself is considered the verbatim word of God and contains very few statements about the future (before the day of judgment at least) as it is theoretically a real-time communication from the 7th century. Your statement otherwise also smacks of a talking point from a polemicist which you are simply regurgitating.David80 (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aisha and Vines

Half of the section on Aisha is about Vines' comments and the reaction to that. I don't think I'd heard of him until today. Is it appropriate to give this much weight to his comments in particular? Andjam (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No not really, there are much more notable people who have critcised a middle aged man for having sex with a 9 year old. Unfortunately they get deleted as "extremist sources". (Hypnosadist) 15:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hear hear. This paragraph seems extremely mild and slanted towards an apologetic/consiliatory POV. See also quote "The age of Aisha is of particular concern to SOME non-Muslims" This seems an inaccurate reflection of the large number of people who condemn this behavior. -- JNL - --82.168.9.5 (talk) 08:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gratuitous Off-Topic Rhetoric in Aisha Section

User:Itaqallah seems to be insistent, without explanation, on reintroducing unencyclopedic, gratuitous and off-topic rhetoric to the section on Aisha's age. The quote in question, reproduced below, is nothing more than general praise of Muhammad and, therefore, has no specific relevence in the section:

Faheem Rokadiya said: "On the other hand, the Prophet, who is a messenger of Allah, and the Prophet of Islam, is based on the foundation that all people should be treated fairly. The Prophet was a kind, fair and noble man. A man who everybody could look up to out of respect, because he had respect for everything in the world. Why should we disrespect him like this, when he has done nothing wrong to us. Devil he is none- only his enemy."

Here is a diff showing the quote in context and the section after removal.

98.226.198.53 (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Itaqallah has, yet again, inserted this irrelevant passage into the section and I have, yet again, removed it. Itaqalla, this article is not the place for random, off-topic outbursts of religious rhetoric. 98.226.198.53 (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It would actually be relevant if a reliable source notes Rokadiya's comment in relation to what Vines said. I have re-removed the passage as neither the Times website nor the Washington Post website actually verify that statement. ITAQALLAH 23:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The quote is general praise of Mohammad and absolutely does not address the issue of Aisha at all. The quote is right there in full. Sourced or not, the content has no business being in that section. As far as the source is concerned, considering there is no evidence that name is noteworthy and considering that this article is the only place the quote appears online at all, your insistence on repeatedly putting it in the section is extremely suspect and definitely qualifies as vandalism. 98.226.198.53 (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)